In my last post, I considered the Ontario Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Appeal Tribunal’s (“AFRAAT) and Ontario Divisional Court’s rejection of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union’s (“UFCW”) constitutional challenge to the Agricultural Employees Protection Act (“AEPA”). Here I argue that the AFRAAT and the Divisional Court have reinforced the distinctions between the AEPA and the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“LRA”). In doing so, they refused the Supreme Court of Canada’s invitation in Fraser to be flexible in their interpretation of the AEPA. . . . [more]

INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court of Canada in Fraser concluded that, with the minor adjustment of reading in an additional provision, the Ontario Agricultural Employees Protection Act (“AEPA”) is constitutional. In UFCW v. MedReleaf Corp. Phase 2 (“MedReleaf”), the Ontario Agricultural, Food and Rural Affairs Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) concluded that the caselaw since then does not warrant a different outcome. The recent Divisional Court decision in United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Aurora Cannabis Enterprises Inc. (“Aurora”) upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

The United Farm and Commercial Workers International Union (“UFCW”) had also brought complaints about MedReleaf’s conduct during the . . . [more]

On June 29, 2021, the Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, (introduced as Bill C-30) received royal assent in the Senate and is now law. Provisions in the new law will come into force at various dates and by proclamation. The new law allows the creation of the Canada Recovery Hiring Program, the extended Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy to September 25, 2021, and other HR and payroll measures explained in this article. . . . [more]

While Canada wrestles with the mounting tolls of historic deaths at residential schools, many are reconsidering how to celebrate Canada Day on July 1, 2021. There are calls for an independent probe, and even for criminal charges to be laid.

The upside is that this might be Canada’s moment of reconciliation, with unprecedented interest in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Accepting the realities of this past may be the first steps to creating a better future.

How the legal system deals with these issues is equally challenging, as illustrated by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision earlier . . . [more]

The Quebec Government’s An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec (Bill 96), has generated considerable controversy over whether a province is able to make significant constitutional changes to its status and the use of the French and English languages unilaterally. It also raises the question of whether, if enacted and the constitution is amended, it will undermine the very architecture of the 1867 constitutional “deal” that united the original four members of confederation and subsequently the rest of the provinces. The answers to these two interrelated questions could have momentous ramifications for Canada. . . . [more]

Written by Lewis Waring, Paralegal, Student-at-Law, Editor, First Reference Inc.

In Peretta v Rand v Technology Corporation (“Perretta”), an employer repudiated an employment contract by insisting that a new term be added after the contract had already come into effect. The reason that the employer’s insistence on adding a new term resulted in the repudiation of the contract was that the new term was so important that the employer’s attempt to force the employee to agree to it showed an intention to not be bound by the original contract. . . . [more]

In July 2020, the Ontario Legislative Assembly enacted new legislation governing the provision of legal aid in the province, Legal Aid Services Act, 2020 (“2020 Act”). The legislation does not come into force until it has been proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor and that won’t happen until new rules have been finalized. The board of Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) (called “the Corporation” under the 2020 Act) has the authority under section 46 of the 2020 Act to make rules governing the provision of legal aid. The proposed rules are currently available for comment on Legal Aid Ontario’s website (more on that . . . [more]

By Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, HRinfodesk

Sometimes just doing enough is insufficient. In a nutshell, this was the decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board in Liquor Control Board of Ontario v Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2021 CanLII 15607 (ON LRB) when it ruled on the employer’s measures in combatting COVID-19, which were deemed insufficient by a health and safety investigator. . . . [more]

Written by Daniel Standing LL.B., Editor, First Reference Inc.

At first glance, Abbasbayli v Fiera Foods Company, 2021 ONCA 95 appears to be concerned mainly with the law around striking pleadings. On further analysis, however, it offers important advice to employers on the matter of personal liability of corporate directors. . . . [more]

The law has played a major role in governments’ responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Whether it has taken the form of legislation, orders or regulations with legally enforceable status, or recommendations or advice, treated as if it were law, governments’ intention with these laws has been to force major changes in behaviour. Many of these laws, formal and informal, have also resulted in confusion, frustration and anger. In this post and in my next, I consider how governments’ use of law has met our expectations about the characteristics of public law in a democratic system. Here I discuss the characteristics . . . [more]

Like most countries around the world, Canada introduced early travel restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These restrictions are necessary to limit the spread of the virus, and become increasingly important as new strains are being identified and also being brought into Canada.

In March 2020, the Canadian government began imposing restrictions on travel, initially to allow for citizens, permanent residents, international students on a valid study permit, transiting passengers, and temporary foreign workers, to enter the country.

By May 2020, foreigners who were exempt from the travel restrictions had to demonstrate that the purpose was for an essential reason. At . . . [more]

In the back pages of comic books, there was often a curious advertisement. One which purported to sell x-ray glasses, which would allow the user to see through things.

Although first patented in 1906, these novelty items simply created an optical illusion and involved no x-rays at all. This didn’t prevent many young readers from purchasing, with the intent of being up to no good. Roger Luckhurst explains in “X-Ray Specs,”

As anyone who spent a dollar (plus postage and packing) on mail order X-Ray Specs came bitterly to learn, Röntgen’s x rays were not involved in